Understanding the circuits’ anti-defendant inclinations

Based on my tracking of reasonableness review outcomes after Booker, it is hard not to sense an anti-defendant inclination in the pattern of pro-prosecution outcomes.  Though I am troubled by such tilt, cases like US v. Jackson, No. 06-5258 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2006) (available here), spotlight why there can often been an anti-defendant atmosphere in the circuit courts.

In Jackson, the defendant apparently got a lot of breaks in a plea deal with the prosecutor and also successfully convinced the district court to impose a below-guideline sentence.  Still unhappy, the defendant appealed the reasonableness of his sentence, apparently without any evidence to support his assertion that his sentence was unreasonable.  After reviewing Sixth Circuit law, the Jackson court has this to say:

It appears that Jackson is simply unhappy with his sentence, despite the fact that it is lower than the statutory maximum (120 months) and the applicable Guidelines range (84-105 months). The fact that the district court did not give the defendant the exact sentence he sought is not a cognizable basis to appeal, particularly where the district court followed the mandate of section 3553(a) in all relevant respects.  Because the district court adequately considered the factors set forth in section 3553(a), we hold that his sentence was reasonable.